Will we see a NAD 'module'

I've been playtesting DDN a fair bit and my group has both positive and negative options. For background I've been DMing D&D since the 1983 red box and several of my group have been together since early 2nd edition. We've switched with each update and tend to prefer 4th edition most. We felt 3rd ed was to complex and got away from the 'essense' of D&D that 1st and 2nd edition exemplified. Now many argue that 4e does so even more but we felt that it at least took the game in a whole new direction and fixed many of the out dated ideas of past editions. On the flip side we felt that 4e focused to much on the combat and lost a lot of the over-arching theme of D&D.

So with that said, the biggest one of these out dated ideas we feel are saving throws. When we found out that 4e drops them for three new non-ac defenses, we were thrilled. To see DDN go back to the old style was a big disappointment. We feel they are going back to saving throws just because thats how most editions did things even though NAD is (in our opinion) superior design.

And so as the topic says, has anyone heard word on a potential NAD module? We are happy that DDN is going to be modular based, because if we pick up 5e we will likely be using a number of 4e inspired modules and hopefully a NAD system will be one of them.
I doubt it. 

While saving throws may be "outdated" as you call them, they're functionally not different than attack rolls.  NADs are not "superior" design, just different.

And even if you really want to get rid of saving throws, you can.  It's a simple mathematical formula to convert a saving throw bonus into a defense, or vice versa.


And yes, I am a 4e fan.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I doubt it. 

While saving throws may be "outdated" as you call them, they're functionally not different than attack rolls.  NADs are not "superior" design, just different.

And even if you really want to get rid of saving throws, you can.  It's a simple mathematical formula to convert a saving throw bonus into a defense, or vice versa.


And yes, I am a 4e fan.



And then reason why it was brought back to saving throw instead of keeping them as NAD is?

I mean NAD allowed magic spells to become critical hit, that was one of the reasons for NAD if i recall. 


And then reason why it was brought back to saving throw instead of keeping them as NAD is?

I mean NAD allowed magic spells to become critical hit, that was one of the reasons for NAD if i recall. 



As someone who didn't play 4E much at all, I'm not entirely sure what NAD is, but in general, I don't feel as if the defense (in whatever form it takes) has an impact on whether or not a spell could critically hit.

It's simple to do that regardless of the defense in most cases: if the spell requires an attack roll of any kind, it crits on a 20, using the normal rules for critical hits (whatever they turn out to be, or depending on which module your group selects for handling critical hits). I'm not really seeing the difference, or issue.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I would rather see it as part of the core.  It is silly that some spells roll a save, and others are rolling an attack.  I frequently as a DM need to ask if I am rolling save or if they are attacking. 

I would prefer all spells roll to attack vs some defense.  Trap like objects and ongoing spell effects be saved against. 
I doubt it. 

While saving throws may be "outdated" as you call them, they're functionally not different than attack rolls.  NADs are not "superior" design, just different.

And even if you really want to get rid of saving throws, you can.  It's a simple mathematical formula to convert a saving throw bonus into a defense, or vice versa.


And yes, I am a 4e fan.



And then reason why it was brought back to saving throw instead of keeping them as NAD is?

I mean NAD allowed magic spells to become critical hit, that was one of the reasons for NAD if i recall. 



Nostalgia and because it "feels" more like dnd for many fans.

I agree that going back to saving throws is a step back but I have never been a fan of early edition dnd's "sometimes you roll high, sometimes you want to roll low, sometimes the attacker rolls but sometimes the defender does"

That sort of thing is actually one of the barriers to getting folks into the game imo - maybe not a real high one but I've seen more than one person simply say "this makes no sense" and want to do something else.

BUT they made the change to appease the sensibilities of their target audience- lapsed customers of tsr.
 
And then reason why it was brought back to saving throw instead of keeping them as NAD is?


Weight of tradition, mostly.

I mean NAD allowed magic spells to become critical hit, that was one of the reasons for NAD if i recall. 


Critting with a pre-4E style spell could be... a bit excessive.  You could do it in 3E with stuff like orb of acid, and double 10d6 was a lot.
I would rather see it as part of the core.  It is silly that some spells roll a save, and others are rolling an attack.  I frequently as a DM need to ask if I am rolling save or if they are attacking. 

I would prefer all spells roll to attack vs some defense.  Trap like objects and ongoing spell effects be saved against. 



I'm with you. But since it doesn't appear that it is going to happen, thats why I asked about a module. I know with Bound Accuracy saves/nad wouldn't work as they have classically anyway, but that doesn't negate the reasons why NAD was used and considered my many to be the better system.

To the poster who asked about NAD. In DDN you have spells that sometimes require an attack but usually require a save by the target. Because many spells do not have a direct attack roll, they cannot crit. With NAD in 4th edition you remove saving throws from spells (accept for secondary effects like say the continual acid damage from Acid Arrow) and always roll an attack against AC, Reflex, Fortitude or Will. Likewise many classes used these defenses, not just wizards and sorcerers, etc. A Rogue sneak attacking with a crossbow might need to hit with Reflex. A Fighter might have to hit Fortitude with a stunning attack, etc. It allowed not only those attacks to have a chance of critting, and there is never any confusion as noted above' ah.. do I need to save or is that an attack?'.

To the one poster who said it would be simple math to convert saves to an NAD system, that is true.. though you'll then have to asign every spell, or maneuver, etc to the system and there are certainly going to be conflicts about it.

The issue seems to be a lot of these 'steps back' with saving throws, vancian magic, etc exist just because its tradition. Well sometimes tradition isn't worth it when a new system is more mathematically sound and more interesting to use (part of the fun of a wizard was critting with those big 'boom' spells after all hehe). When it comes right down to it, change can be a good thing.  I 'like' that DDN brings that 'classical' feel of D&D. I think 4e, and 3e missed that. 4e didn't have the 'heart' of D&D, and 3e didn't have the 'soul' of D&D IMHO. But I don't see why you couldn't have the classic 1st ed, 2nd ed 'feel' of D&D without using more modern, and IMHO often much better, systems.
It's simple to do. Just assume creatures have a NAD of 10+ability mod and instead of rolling saves make attack rolls.

Personally I like saves, as it's nice to have both an active and reactive defence. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

It's simple to do. Just assume creatures have a NAD of 10+ability mod and instead of rolling saves make attack rolls.

Personally I like saves, as it's nice to have both an active and reactive defence. 

Agreed, but I think you meant "11 + ability mod".

The metagame is not the game.
Deciding whether or not something was a save or attack was usually pretty simple for me. 

1) Does it attack a specific target with the intent of doing damage? Is it feasible to "dodge" it? Then it's probably an attack roll.

2) Does it hit multiple targets (at once)? Is it completely impossible to "dodge" (Like a charm spell)? Then it's probably a save.

It seems complicated at first, but eventually my brain just did it automatically. However, I do agree it could be simpler, but saving throws do feel like classic D&D to me
My two copper.
NADs are better than saves, but not so much better that I'd bother messing around with conversions and stuff. The primary advantages of NADs is that they make the game more consistant, less confusing, and more concise. The bother of converting things largely eclipses those advantages. If modules were a magic spray that I could just apply to the books to convert design decisions into slightly better ones, then I'd use the NAD one, but it's not worth the trouble to explain to players that whenever it says this, we're doing that, and these bonuses apply to those instead, and you instead have disadvantage on this instead of them having advantage on that and so on. That's the worst of both worlds; you have to deal with the game's inconsistancy and pointless complexity as written, and you have to deal with the complexity of not running things as written.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
It's simple to do. Just assume creatures have a NAD of 10+ability mod and instead of rolling saves make attack rolls.

Personally I like saves, as it's nice to have both an active and reactive defence. 

Agreed, but I think you meant "11 + ability mod".


Crap. You're right. I noticed that and was going to fix that but must have been distracted. Crap.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

D&D, to me, is not a game about fantasy heroes killing things, but about characters surviving (or causing) a situation in a supernatural world. Creating a makeshift grappling hook and killing monsters are satisfying for the exact same reason, it is a bold move taken to help ensure survival.

This is why I prefer saving throws over NAD. Saving throws focus on the act of surviving a dangerous event like being hit with a fire ball or resisting mind control. When it's just, "Oh, he hit, you're under mind control" it feels cheap. A major even just happened to my character, and it felt like I did nothing to avoid it. The feeling of making a magic attack is not worth taking away the feeling of resisting a magic attack IMO.

(Previously, I have mentioned that I just like to feel that I am making an attempt to resist these effects that have a huge impact on my character, and saving throws give that feeling. That's still true, but I think this reason is more to the root of that reason, and a deeper / clearer explanation of why I feel this way. I've been doing some digging on why I like saving throws. I'm too new to D&D for it to be nostalgia or tradition.)


However, I still want to try out opposing d10 rolls one of these days. I think I may even like that better because it also lets me roll to avoid attack rolls. Not sure what that would do to advantage / disadvantage. Both people roll two dice, one takes the higher roll and the other takes the lower roll?


A saving throw against a DC of 14 with a bonus of +3 is the same as an attack of +4 against a defence of 13.

Just add 10 to one, and subtract ten from the other. Nice and easy. 
I prefer NADs (non-AC defenses [Fortitude/Reflex/Will] for those not in the know) to saves. I do think it is a superior design than saves, if for no other reason than it keeps only a single person at a time rolling dice.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I would rather see it as part of the core.  It is silly that some spells roll a save, and others are rolling an attack.  I frequently as a DM need to ask if I am rolling save or if they are attacking. 

I would prefer all spells roll to attack vs some defense.  Trap like objects and ongoing spell effects be saved against.

Even traps can be “attacks”. Even drinking poison is an “attack” against Constitution.


D&D, to me, is not a game about fantasy heroes killing things, but about characters surviving (or causing) a situation in a supernatural world. Creating a makeshift grappling hook and killing monsters are satisfying for the exact same reason, it is a bold move taken to help ensure survival.

This is why I prefer saving throws over NAD. Saving throws focus on the act of surviving a dangerous event like being hit with a fire ball or resisting mind control. When it's just, "Oh, he hit, you're under mind control" it feels cheap. A major even just happened to my character, and it felt like I did nothing to avoid it. The feeling of making a magic attack is not worth taking away the feeling of resisting a magic attack IMO.

(Previously, I have mentioned that I just like to feel that I am making an attempt to resist these effects that have a huge impact on my character, and saving throws give that feeling. That's still true, but I think this reason is more to the root of that reason, and a deeper / clearer explanation of why I feel this way. I've been doing some digging on why I like saving throws. I'm too new to D&D for it to be nostalgia or tradition.)


However, I still want to try out opposing d10 rolls one of these days. I think I may even like that better because it also lets me roll to avoid attack rolls. Not sure what that would do to advantage / disadvantage. Both people roll two dice, one takes the higher roll and the other takes the lower roll?



Well, if that is true, then the game should make saving throws to determine whether the armor can deflect a weapon attack. The Armor save.

After all, if a hero puts an axe to fell a tree, it is pretty much an automatical hit. There is no attack roll “to hit”.

The exceptions are animate creatures who make an effort to get out of the way of the axe.

So we should eliminate the attack mechanic entirely, and only have saving throws.

Right?        


D&D, to me, is not a game about fantasy heroes killing things, but about characters surviving (or causing) a situation in a supernatural world. Creating a makeshift grappling hook and killing monsters are satisfying for the exact same reason, it is a bold move taken to help ensure survival.

This is why I prefer saving throws over NAD. Saving throws focus on the act of surviving a dangerous event like being hit with a fire ball or resisting mind control. When it's just, "Oh, he hit, you're under mind control" it feels cheap. A major even just happened to my character, and it felt like I did nothing to avoid it. The feeling of making a magic attack is not worth taking away the feeling of resisting a magic attack IMO.

(Previously, I have mentioned that I just like to feel that I am making an attempt to resist these effects that have a huge impact on my character, and saving throws give that feeling. That's still true, but I think this reason is more to the root of that reason, and a deeper / clearer explanation of why I feel this way. I've been doing some digging on why I like saving throws. I'm too new to D&D for it to be nostalgia or tradition.)


However, I still want to try out opposing d10 rolls one of these days. I think I may even like that better because it also lets me roll to avoid attack rolls. Not sure what that would do to advantage / disadvantage. Both people roll two dice, one takes the higher roll and the other takes the lower roll?





I prefer rolling saves as well. I like the idea of players having (at least some) control over their ultimate fate. One fun method I've found is, instead of rolling 1d20 + bonus, replacing the attribute bonus with a die step. +1 = d2, +2 = d4, +3 = d6, etc. It's a cool way of adding chaos and tension to the fight, and it doesn't mess with the math very much (it grants a slight bonus to the defender, but then again, they also have a chance of failing easy saves they would otherwise pass).

I'm glad we agree on something, even if we implement it differently. Smile 
Well, if that is true, then the game should make saving throws to determine whether the armor can deflect a weapon attack. The Armor save.

After all, if a hero puts an axe to fell a tree, it is pretty much an automatical hit. There is no attack roll “to hit”.

The exceptions are animate creatures who make an effort to get out of the way of the axe.

So we should eliminate the attack mechanic entirely, and only have saving throws.

Right?

Well, my first choice for a dice system would be a version of opposing rolls that wasn't too swingy. Neither downplaying action nor reaction.

Second choice would be this cawazy system that classic D&D is based on. It's like when they were original designing D&D, and rolling dice to see rather something would require an attack or a saving throw, they actually came up with something that used attack rolls for simple small things like sword damage, and saving throws for more major things like dying in a fire. Wow, how lucky for someone with my tastes that these illogical random choices would work out so well!

Third thing I'd pick would either be this armor save thing of yours or all attack rolls where your character dies in a fire with zero player interaction. But honestly, I would go back to the drawing board when facing either of those cases.


PS: I've had a DM tell us to roll against a door. I think your auto tree hit thing might be a house rule. Just an FYI.
The difference between saves and attacks is one of which entity is having the more active role.  The reason Scorching Ray had an attack roll and Fireball had a save in 3.5 was because Scorching Ray was more about the caster's aim, whereas Fireball there really isn't much aiming to be done.  You're assumed to hit the center location you want, and then anyone in the blast radius suffers the consequences.  Rather than expressing the result as an attack that the caster did, it expressed more directly the defensive side - dodging the brunt of the explosion.

Now, there's a strong case to be made that it really doesn't matter, that 4e's attack-rolls-for-everything method combines both the actions of the attacker and the defender into one roll.  And that's correct.  But the emphasis is different.  It's harder to argue, in my opinion, that the three people fully affected by the fireball were affected because the caster did a really great job, but then somehow bungled it on the fourth who only took half damage.

The presence of two types of attack resolution allows for this variation, rather than forcing them all into the more abstract "combination" style.

And since it's mathematically irrelevant either way, I'd argue that more flexibility and choice in the emphasis that the mechanics place on the narrative is better than less.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I disagree....is having 2 diferent procedures to do the same...resolving an attack...it's overcomplicate things for the sake of nostalgia

Why not have Armor Class saves then? what? you think that in-narrative, when someone swing the sword against you, you just stand still?
I disagree....is having 2 diferent procedures to do the same...resolving an attack...it's overcomplicate things for the sake of nostalgia

Why not have Armor Class saves then? what? you think that in-narrative, when someone swing the sword against you, you just stand still?



Then your way is oversimplifying things for the sake of modernity. How nostalgic it is doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for the game. And in my 20+ years of playing and DMing, players overwhelmingly prefer to feel like they are reacting to AOEs, mind-affecting attacks, traps, and so on. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

Here's another example like what Mand posted, this time with traps. If a trap makes an attack roll and misses, the player thinks, "Wow, what a crappy trap." If the player succeeds on a saving throw to avoid a trap, he thinks, "Good thing I'm awesome or that would've taken my leg off!"
I disagree....is having 2 diferent procedures to do the same...resolving an attack...it's overcomplicate things for the sake of nostalgia

Why not have Armor Class saves then? what? you think that in-narrative, when someone swing the sword against you, you just stand still?



Then your way is oversimplifying things for the sake of modernity. How nostalgic it is doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for the game. And in my 20+ years of playing and DMing, players overwhelmingly prefer to feel like they are reacting to AOEs, mind-affecting attacks, traps, and so on. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

Here's another example like what Mand posted, this time with traps. If a trap makes an attack roll and misses, the player thinks, "Wow, what a crappy trap." If the player succeeds on a saving throw to avoid a trap, he thinks, "Good thing I'm awesome or that would've taken my leg off!"



Then it's the fault of the DM not to narrate how things are resolved as a combination of both the attacker and the attacked...
I disagree....is having 2 diferent procedures to do the same...resolving an attack...it's overcomplicate things for the sake of nostalgia

Why not have Armor Class saves then? what? you think that in-narrative, when someone swing the sword against you, you just stand still?



Then your way is oversimplifying things for the sake of modernity. How nostalgic it is doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for the game. And in my 20+ years of playing and DMing, players overwhelmingly prefer to feel like they are reacting to AOEs, mind-affecting attacks, traps, and so on. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

Here's another example like what Mand posted, this time with traps. If a trap makes an attack roll and misses, the player thinks, "Wow, what a crappy trap." If the player succeeds on a saving throw to avoid a trap, he thinks, "Good thing I'm awesome or that would've taken my leg off!"



My mileage does vary

Folks who've played the game a while might be used to the "sometimes attacks the attacker roles sometimes the defender" way that dnd handles the issue but new people I've found that just adds another bit of unneeded complexity they have to deal with.  Even older folks like me sometimes don't like it.

It's not gamebreakingly bad or anything but I definitely prefer "attacker always roles" and seem to recall a Dragon magazine thing having something about that years and years ago.

From looking at the opinions in the thread seems like there are enough folks on both sides that this would be excellent candidate for a simple rules module
 
It's simple to do. Just assume creatures have a NAD of 10+ability mod and instead of rolling saves make attack rolls.

Personally I like saves, as it's nice to have both an active and reactive defence. 

Agreed, but I think you meant "11 + ability mod".




Given how simple it is it'd be nice to see it as an actual optional module in the DMG.

After all, it's not going to take up a lot of space.

And would be one of those nice little nods to all those gamers who did actually make 4th Ed D&D the most popular RPG on the planet for 4 years.    
I totally agree it should be a module available from day one. 

I think one of the reasons they may have went with saving throws, is that in the current example, they don't require anything else on the character sheet. It's a couple of paragraphs of rules in the book, and from there you use your ability scores.


NADs are something people like, and it's a trivial module to create, but if saves aren't scaling, do we need a spot on the sheet for it? Personally, even if saves start scaling, I like the saving throw method, because it puts the rolling in who's doing the action (saves are for things you are trying to react to), and outside of a caster PC, it leaves more rolls in the hands of the players. Furthermore, if saves do scale, using saving throws makes contests simpler as well since you don't need a spot on your sheet for your bonus as well as your nad.


Tradition may play a big part of it, but that's doesn't mean there aren't a number of other benefits for going back to saving throws.


I think one of the reasons they may have went with saving throws, is that in the current example, they don't require anything else on the character sheet. It's a couple of paragraphs of rules in the book, and from there you use your ability scores.


NADs are something people like, and it's a trivial module to create, but if saves aren't scaling, do we need a spot on the sheet for it? Personally, even if saves start scaling, I like the saving throw method, because it puts the rolling in who's doing the action (saves are for things you are trying to react to), and outside of a caster PC, it leaves more rolls in the hands of the players. Furthermore, if saves do scale, using saving throws makes contests simpler as well since you don't need a spot on your sheet for your bonus as well as your nad.


Tradition may play a big part of it, but that's doesn't mean there aren't a number of other benefits for going back to saving throws.




I disagree- it puts the rolls in the hands of who is doing the REASCTION not who is doing the action.  A trap trying to split you in half, suck you into an oubliette, or haul you up in the air via a snare around your ankle is acting against you.  A wizard trying to fry you fire, zap you with a lightning bolt or dominate your mind is acting against you.

If you want to make it go the other way so that defenders always roll thats ok too or make them all opposed rolls that may be fine but whatever it is I'd like consistency in the resolution mechanic- or at least an optional model for that so we can both be happy.
 
If you want to make it go the other way so that defenders always roll thats ok too or make them all opposed rolls that may be fine but whatever it is I'd like consistency in the resolution mechanic- or at least an optional model for that so we can both be happy.

Pretty much this for me as well.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Sure you can advocate bringing this into next but it would be yet another nail in D&D's coffin. 

It seems people forget why they are going through this process in the first place. 4e didn't work out financially. The vast majority of roleplayers do not play D&D anymore, at least they don't play the current version, so why in the world would they insist on making next a clone of a game that is clearly not getting the job done.

For me there's too much garbage from 4e in the game already and I'm not pleased. I'm so not pleased that Next, as it is right now, is failing to accomplish the stated mission of bringing me back to D&D. If things stay as they are or don't shift to another direction I'm not buying it. My group is happy with pathfinder and so far the playtest material has done nothing to sway them to try it. 
Sure you can advocate bringing this into next but it would be yet another nail in D&D's coffin. 

It seems people forget why they are going through this process in the first place. 4e didn't work out financially. The vast majority of roleplayers do not play D&D anymore, at least they don't play the current version, so why in the world would they insist on making next a clone of a game that is clearly not getting the job done.

For me there's too much garbage from 4e in the game already and I'm not pleased. I'm so not pleased that Next, as it is right now, is failing to accomplish the stated mission of bringing me back to D&D. If things stay as they are or don't shift to another direction I'm not buying it. My group is happy with pathfinder and so far the playtest material has done nothing to sway them to try it. 



Edition war language generally gets a negative response.

As a 4th edition fan I'll just politely say that there is nothing in the current playtest that reminds me of 4th.
 
  

Edition war language generally gets a negative response.

As a 4th edition fan I'll just politely say that there is nothing in the current playtest that reminds me of 4th.
 



You're probably right I should have said too much garbage from 3e and 4e but since the topic was about bringing yet more from the only version of the game I refuse to own I figured I didn't need to drag more questionable game design through the wringer. 

I do appologize for offending you though.

I guess for some 4e is the acceptable, for me it is the reason I gave up on WotC's attempts at D&D. At this point in time they are not winning me back as a customer. 
  

Edition war language generally gets a negative response.

As a 4th edition fan I'll just politely say that there is nothing in the current playtest that reminds me of 4th.
 



You're probably right I should have said too much garbage from 3e and 4e but since the topic was about bringing yet more from the only version of the game I refuse to own I figured I didn't need to drag more questionable game design through the wringer. 

I do appologize for offending you though.

I guess for some 4e is the acceptable, for me it is the reason I gave up on WotC's attempts at D&D. At this point in time they are not winning me back as a customer. 



Whether it is 3e, 4e or OD&D stating "I'm not coming back if the garbage from Xe is included"  there are much more constructive ways of stating your opinion that don't use edition warring language.

With your stated opinions of them not winning  you back is your only purpose to come here and insult other's playstyle?  If so that's pretty much the definition of trolling and I would hope you would reconsider.

No edition was perfect and if you want to be taken seriously you'd be better off coming to the table with constructive  feedback.  I'm told everyone's input is welcomed (although to be honest I'm not feeling that mine has had any effect)
@VacantPsalm. Fair enough for preferring opposed rolls, ideally if practicable.



The difference between saves and attacks is one of which entity is having the more active role.  The reason Scorching Ray had an attack roll and Fireball had a save in 3.5 was because Scorching Ray was more about the caster's aim, whereas Fireball there really isn't much aiming to be done.

Well, mages are my favorite classes, and not rolling feels unfair.



Fireball is very much a spellcasting “aim”, with the effort involving Intelligence to control and direct the magical forces at the physical target.

If you want to make it go the other way so that defenders always roll thats ok too or make them all opposed rolls that may be fine but whatever it is I'd like consistency in the resolution mechanic- or at least an optional model for that so we can both be happy.

Pretty much this for me as well.


Yeah.

Personally I think whether you are acting or reacting or inducing reactions or whatever I want the players to feel they are the active ones ie a players make all the rolls is trey cool. It was an unnearthed arcana from an earlier edition that worked great in the latest.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

@VacantPsalm. Fair enough for preferring opposed rolls, ideally if practicable.



The difference between saves and attacks is one of which entity is having the more active role.  The reason Scorching Ray had an attack roll and Fireball had a save in 3.5 was because Scorching Ray was more about the caster's aim, whereas Fireball there really isn't much aiming to be done.

Well, mages are my favorite classes, and not rolling feels unfair.



Fireball is very much a spellcasting “aim”, with the effort involving Intelligence to control and direct the magical forces at the physical target.



So address my example, please.  If there are four targets in a fireball, are you controlling and directing the magical forces individually?

Narrate the example.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Whether it is 3e, 4e or OD&D stating "I'm not coming back if the garbage from Xe is included"  there are much more constructive ways of stating your opinion that don't use edition warring language.

With your stated opinions of them not winning  you back is your only purpose to come here and insult other's playstyle?  If so that's pretty much the definition of trolling and I would hope you would reconsider.

No edition was perfect and if you want to be taken seriously you'd be better off coming to the table with constructive  feedback.  I'm told everyone's input is welcomed (although to be honest I'm not feeling that mine has had any effect)



No you call it edition warring because I said something you didn't like about a version of the game you prefer. 

I never said one edition was better than any other edition I called crappy game design crappy game design and don't want to have to suffer using the crap in my D&D. That's all.

I did say that WotC really ruined D&D though and I will stand by that. Next is really looking schizophrenic right now and is getting worse eith each packet they put out. 

As far as I'm concerned they can add all the garbage rules from all of the past games and it will still be a pile of crap. You tell me what they are doing right when they have published four versions of the same game in twelve years and are trying to produce a fifth that will make all of us at least not hate it enough to buy it when they release it. 
@VacantPsalm. Fair enough for preferring opposed rolls, ideally if practicable.



The difference between saves and attacks is one of which entity is having the more active role.  The reason Scorching Ray had an attack roll and Fireball had a save in 3.5 was because Scorching Ray was more about the caster's aim, whereas Fireball there really isn't much aiming to be done.

Well, mages are my favorite classes, and not rolling feels unfair.



Fireball is very much a spellcasting “aim”, with the effort involving Intelligence to control and direct the magical forces at the physical target.



So address my example, please.  If there are four targets in a fireball, are you controlling and directing the magical forces individually?

Narrate the example.



With regard to most area blasts, the center of the blast (ground zero) should always deal more damage, including possibility of crit, advantage, and so on - normal combat mechanics. Especially in a magical explosion, the mage can try to steer the bulk of the explosion in certain directions, thus attacking secondary targets.

For the sake of simplicity, I just apply the same attack roll to all (nonplayer) targets. But if desirable, it is easy to roll “attacks” individually to determine hits.
Sure you can advocate bringing this into next but it would be yet another nail in D&D's coffin. 

It seems people forget why they are going through this process in the first place. 4e didn't work out financially. The vast majority of roleplayers do not play D&D anymore, at least they don't play the current version, so why in the world would they insist on making next a clone of a game that is clearly not getting the job done.

For me there's too much garbage from 4e in the game already and I'm not pleased. I'm so not pleased that Next, as it is right now, is failing to accomplish the stated mission of bringing me back to D&D. If things stay as they are or don't shift to another direction I'm not buying it. My group is happy with pathfinder and so far the playtest material has done nothing to sway them to try it. 



I'd have to call you biased if you can't find a single redeaming quality if 4E. I for instance dislike editions previous to 4E, however I can find all kinds of redeaming qualities in them. 3.xE allowed for a wide range of class types and allowed people to take multiple classes. Feats originated in 3.xE and enriched the game. 2E got rid of Thac0 and basically invented the D20 mechanic. 1E allowed DMs to tell their stories, rather than the limited stories available in basic, they also moved from look up tables to Thac0. Seriously "too much 4E in my D&D" is a bad thing to say when there is literally only 2 things taken from 4E...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.